9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For Respondent: Shri Deependra Mohan, C.A. ORDER Per Bench: These appeals of the Revenue and cross-objections of the assessee arise out of the consolidated order passed by the CIT(A)-I, Agra, on 27.01.2010 in appeal Nos. 19 to 21/Agra/2009-10. The main issue is whether the assessee, UPSRTC is obliged to deduct tax at source under the provision contained in section 194C or 194-I of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short), for payments made to the contractors by way of hire charges ? 2. The facts, as mentioned in the assessment order, are that the assessee entered into contracts regarding providing and plying buses with various parties. The case of the assessee is that it entered into works contract wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imilar observation has been made for the financial year 2008-09, till December, 2008, determining tax and interest at ₹ 24,19,495/-. The matter has been agitated before the first appellate authority, who has come to the conclusion that half of the amount is subject to tax deduction at source u/s. 194C and other half u/s. 194-I. Therefore, the assessee has been granted part relief in the matter. 2.1 Aggrieved by this order, the Revenue is in appeals before us and the main ground taken is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in applying the provisions of sections 194C and 194-I in directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute tax and interest u/s. 201(1) and section 201(1A) respectively instead of the correct position that whole of the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the rate of 10%. However, it is fairly submitted that the facts of the case are identical to the facts of the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rajapur, Allahabad. 4. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. The findings of the Tribunal in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rajapur (supra) are contained in various sub-paragraphs of paragraph No. 5, which is reproduced below : 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. At the outset, we concur with the views of the ld. CIT(A). Under section 194-I, the income-tax is required to be deducted at source at the time of payment of an income by way of rent at the rate of 10% for the use of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific provisions prevail over general provisions. The reliance has been placed on the following judgments in support of the contention of the assessee : (i). CIT vs. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd (2004) 271 ITR 460 (Raj.) (ii). CIT vs. Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corpn. Of India) (2007) 292 ITR 580 (Del.) 5.2. Further reliance was placed in support of the assessee s contention on various circulars issued by the C.B.D.T. as under : (i). Circular No. 681 dated 6.8.1994, (ii). Circular No. 715 dated 8.8.1994, (iii). Circular No. 1/2008 dated 10.1.2008, (iv). Circular No. 713 dated 2.8.1995, (v). Circular No.717 dated 14.8.1995, (vi). Circular No.558 date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
